The High Court dismissed a revision petition challenging the trial court order rejecting an application to dismiss a civil plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC for want of cause of action. The Court held the plaint disclosed a cause of action.
Revision petition dismissed. Interim application also dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
CRP NO. 250 OF 2018
BETWEEN :
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI K.G.SADASHIVAIAH, ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
...RESPONDENTS
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 31.01.2018 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ARASIKERE ON I.A.NO. IV IN OS NO.15/2014.
THIS CRP COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Sri.K.G.Sadashivaiah, learned counsel for petitioners
has appeared through video conferencing.
3
The order dated 31.01.2018 passed by the Court of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Arasikere, is called in question in this revision petition whereby, learned Judge rejected the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 (a) of C.P.C. It is this order which is called in question on various grounds as set out in the revision petition.
4
of 30 years from the date of death of Patel
Siddaramegowda.
Next, he submitted that the trial Court failed to note that the first defendant is the sole legal heir succeeding to the estate of Patel Siddaramegowda.
A further submission was made that Patel Siddaramegowda has died intestate and he has not executed any Will.
It is submitted that the plaintiff has not produced the original Will. The alleged Will has not seen the light of the day for almost 30 years. It is contended that the suit properties are ancestral properties and Patel Siddaramegowda had no absolute right to deal with the joint family properties and hence, he could not have made testamentary disposition.
Lastly, he submitted that viewed from any angle, the order passed by the trial Court on I.A.No.4 is
5
un-sustainable in law. Accordingly, he submitted that the revision petition may be allowed.
The suit filed for declaration in respect of the suit schedule properties is on the basis of Will and consequential relief of permanent injunction and other reliefs.
On service of summons, defendants appeared and filed their written statement. It is relevant to note that counsel for the first defendant moved an application for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC, contending that the plaint be rejected for want of cause of action.
Cause of action comprises of that bundle of facts which, taken together which the law, gives rise to a
6
plaintiff to assert a claim. Cause of action means every fact which, if traversed, would be recalling for plaintiff to prove in order to support plaintiff’s right to a judgment in full part. Cause of action includes some act done by defendants.
But it is significant to note that the explanation used in Order VII Rule 11 (a) is not want of cause of action, but that plaint does not disclose a cause of action. In other words, as Krishna Iyer Judge said in T. Arivandandam v. T. V. Satyapal & Another reported in 1977 (4) SCC
467, to ascertain whether a plaint does or does not disclose a cause of action, plaint must be read in a meaningful manner. What is excluded indeed is a frivolous plaint.
It is also held that if on a meaningful - not formalreading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, he (Munsiff) should exercise his power under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. taking care to see that the ground
7
mentioned therein fulfilled. And, if clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Chapter X, C.P.C.
Bearing these principles in mind, let me see whether
the plaint discloses any cause of action?
The suit is one for declaration and consequential relief of injunction in respect of two items of the properties. Plaintiff has averred that his father died testate and he has executed a Will in his favor on 23.12.1982. Defendants contested the suit.
It is significant to note that during the pendency of the suit, counsel for the first defendant moved an
8
application under Order VII Rule 11(a) of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), to reject the plaint stating that the plaint be rejected for want of cause of action.
The law is well settled that while considering the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the Court is not required to take into consideration the defence set up by the defendant in his written statement. The question whether the plaint discloses any cause of action is to be decided by looking at the averments contained in the plaint itself and not the defence set up in the written statement. What has to be seen is whether or not a meaningful reading of the plaint discloses a cause of action.
While arguing the case, learned counsel for petitioners vehemently urged that Patel Siddaramegowda has not at all executed a Will in favor of plaintiff and that the plaint be rejected for want of cause of action.
9
I find myself unable to accept the said contention. It would be relevant to note that there is a clear difference between the non-disclosure of cause of action in the plaint and the absence or want of cause of action for the suit. The ground for rejection of plaint is failure to disclose a cause of action and not that there is no cause of action for the suit. What is required to be disclosed by the plaintiff is a clear right to sue. Hence, the argument must fail.
In view of the dismissal of the main petition, I.A.No.1/2018 does not survive for consideration and the same is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
VMB
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court was justified in allowing the revision against the trial court's order rejecting the application to dismiss the plaint for want of cause of action.
Whether the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC disclosing a cause of action mandates rejection when truth of execution Will is denied.
Whether the trial judge erred in holding that the plaint discloses a cause of action in a suit for declaration based on a will.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
T. Arivandandam v. T. V. Satyapal & AnotherReferred¶47
T. Arivandandam v. T. V. Satyapal & Another
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt.LakshmidEvamma
Sri H.G.Venkatesh Babu
Smt.Jyothi V.Babu
Sri H.D.Veerabhadrappa
Sri Basappa
Smt.B.R.Mamatha
Jyoti Mulimani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
